WizardofToast:Why: All public libraries in Chicago the book because of its "ungodly" influence "for depicting women in strong leadership roles."

The book was The Wizard of Oz,and the year was 1928. Chicago, of course, is and was heavily Catholic, and the Church was very concerned in the 20s and 30s about "modern" women. One of the big issues pushed by the Motion Picture Production Code about that time: get strong, modern women out of the movies. The Catholic hierarchy was responsible.

Okay, I'm at a work computer that doesn't allow access to Buzzfeed (lucky me), but why was Bridge to Terabethia banned? I read that book in 5th grade, at a private christian school in Texas! Probably one of my favorite books ever at that point, and I still read it every once in awhile.

BMFPitt:7. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine PatersonWhy: The book was banned from several classrooms in Pennsylvania on accounts of "profanity, disrespect for adults, and an elaborate fantasy world that might lead to confusion." The book has also been banned by other schools for its use of the phrases "Oh Lord" and "Lord."

[media.tumblr.com image 390x299]

Lansydyr:Okay, I'm at a work computer that doesn't allow access to Buzzfeed (lucky me), but why was Bridge to Terabethia banned? I read that book in 5th grade, at a private christian school in Texas! Probably one of my favorite books ever at that point, and I still read it every once in awhile.

Never mind, I missed that post. Thanks for quoting, and that it just farking ridiculous.

mithras_angel:It was banned for being "early Marxist" as opposed to "Maoist", or more accurately, for not being "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

The official Party line in China is that they modified Marxism to accommodate reality. It's a lot more complex than that, but the short version is "that doesn't work here, exactly, so we need to change it".

Yeah, I get that part of the equation but what I don't get is how anyone could interpret GE&H as political in any sense much less with that nuance.

I mean I could maybe see some Muslim country or Israel banning the book for it's pro -pork/ anti kosher/halal message but for not being enough in line with Maoist thought?

quatchi:12. Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. SeussWhen: "Until as recently as 1991"Why: Remember that time when Sam I Am tried to seduce his friend? Me neither. But the book was banned in California on accounts of "homosexual seduction."

[lolwot?]

What, you've never tried these immortal lines as a pick-up?

"Say!In the dark?Here in the dark!Would you, could you, in the dark?"

They'd have been even more upset if they read as far as the "Could you, would you, with a goat?" part.

HotWingAgenda:A_Listless_Wanderer: dbirchall: Talking animals? Just wait 'til these guys hear about the Chronicles of Narnia!

I've always found it ironic that the "Christians" who try to ban Harry Potter because it's about magic and is therefore satanic never seem to have a problem with old C.S. Lewis.Lewis was a hard-core Christian, but there's stuff in CoN that almost certainly references occult philosophy...

/loves both CoN and HP

Forget that. Wasn't there some dude in Christian mythology that got famous for magically transforming water into wine, and making self-replicating bread or something?

Oh, indeed. My original hardcover copy of "Lion, Witch..." contains some very specific references to Norse mythology, when the White Witch is talking to Aslan and says "Tell you what is written on the trunk of the World Ash Tree?" And something else, that has to do with Celtic folklore, I forget. In newer editions, that part has been removed and replaced with some non-religious dreck. Very strange...

Gyrfalcon:HotWingAgenda: A_Listless_Wanderer: dbirchall: Talking animals? Just wait 'til these guys hear about the Chronicles of Narnia!

I've always found it ironic that the "Christians" who try to ban Harry Potter because it's about magic and is therefore satanic never seem to have a problem with old C.S. Lewis.Lewis was a hard-core Christian, but there's stuff in CoN that almost certainly references occult philosophy...

/loves both CoN and HP

Forget that. Wasn't there some dude in Christian mythology that got famous for magically transforming water into wine, and making self-replicating bread or something?

Oh, indeed. My original hardcover copy of "Lion, Witch..." contains some very specific references to Norse mythology, when the White Witch is talking to Aslan and says "Tell you what is written on the trunk of the World Ash Tree?" And something else, that has to do with Celtic folklore, I forget. In newer editions, that part has been removed and replaced with some non-religious dreck. Very strange...

I don't think he's called by name, but Bacchus makes an appearance. I think Pan may be with him. Plus fauns and nymphs.

And what is at heart a surprisingly positive view of Islam (and other faiths in general), for that matter.

ghostfacekillahrabbit:The Stealth Hippopotamus: And didn't it bother anyone else that the boy always demanded things and never bothered to say thank you? My boys (then 6 & 3) pointed that out to me.

I may just be drunk, but as I remember it, that was the whole point of the Giving Tree, and it was so famous and tear-jerking precisely because it made that bother you.

I'm pretty high, but I farking hated that book because the boy just takes and takes and the tree gives literally everything for nothing in return. Sick and quite unequal. I didn't pick up that that was the entire point, if so...then bravo, it did a great job evoking disgust. My impression was that it was religious-y in nature and glorifying a sick selfless love, hence my disgust.

Did the author ever say what their view was? I suppose regardless the fact that it evokes this discussion and reaction so strongly so many years later is a testament to what it is.

It's funny how quick farkers are to jump on the animals talking portion of Winnie the Pooh, but leave the offensive to Muslims part out of their scorn. Because making fun of Muslims makes you racist, or something.

dbirchall:quatchi: 12. Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. SeussWhen: "Until as recently as 1991"Why: Remember that time when Sam I Am tried to seduce his friend? Me neither. But the book was banned in California on accounts of "homosexual seduction."

[lolwot?]

What, you've never tried these immortal lines as a pick-up?

"Say!In the dark?Here in the dark!Would you, could you, in the dark?"

They'd have been even more upset if they read as far as the "Could you, would you, with a goat?" part.

That's basically where it came from. Here's the "explanation" I found through some searching:

"Green Eggs and Ham, meanwhile, is a thinly disguised account of homosexual seduction. In this kiddie favorite, "Sam I Am" (that is, "Same As I Am") tries to persuade the narrator to "eat" green eggs and ham. Anyone who has traveled in the Spanish-speaking world knows what "eggs" are. The ham, of course, is a long, phallic sausage, perfect for "porking" someone. The protagonist repeatedly denies any interest in the offer, but Sam persists, proposing that he join him in any number of locations, positions, and kinky arrangements. ("Would you, could you, on a boat? Would you, could you, with a goat?") Finally, our hero gives in, just once-and discovers that he enjoys fellating breakfast after all. Sam has made a convert, and the legion of God-Fearing Heterosexuals is diminished by one. Actually, The Cat in the Hat leaves an odd aftertaste, with its closing admonition not to tell your parents what you've been up to. Read immediately after Green Eggs and Ham, the moral is clear."

Oldiron_79:brantgoose: People who ban children's books are completely wacko.

Masturbation in Alice in Wonderland? I've read that book many times and I've yet to find anything sexual.

Yeah I dont even think Zombie Freud could find most of the undertones claimed.

I'm actually wondering if that report of the book having been banned in 1900 for sexual content is an internet legend. Apparently the site which originally listed that info is no longer up, so the only citations available are other sites which took their info from that site. And since it was 113 years ago, chances of finding a verifiable source are not good. It's possible it could have been banned due to the accusations that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, but it's not clear to me if those accusations were already going around that early (he died in 1898) or if those came about more later.

Masturbation in Alice in Wonderland? I've read that book many times and I've yet to find anything sexual.

Yeah I dont even think Zombie Freud could find most of the undertones claimed.

I'm actually wondering if that report of the book having been banned in 1900 for sexual content is an internet legend. Apparently the site which originally listed that info is no longer up, so the only citations available are other sites which took their info from that site. And since it was 113 years ago, chances of finding a verifiable source are not good. It's possible it could have been banned due to the accusations that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, but it's not clear to me if those accusations were already going around that early (he died in 1898) or if those came about more later.

There are a couple of interviews that exist with inspiration for Alice. She described their relationship as nonsexual, but by today's standards would be considered creepy to say the least.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:WhippingBoy: I don't see what the big deal is. Isn't this the new "age of enlightenment" where we suppress, mock, or shame ideas that make us uncomfortable under the guise of creating a "safe place free from triggering events"? So we ban a few books. At least people's feelings won't be hurt.

When the concept of "hate speech" gained legitimacy, I knew free speech (as a philosophical idea, not a constitutional right) was next.

No, no no. There are no possible negative consequences from criminalizing opinions.

There are a few requests I would agree with ( 50 Shades and the Twilight series) however as a Librarian ALL books are allowed in my library. So sorry, your precious snowflake can indeed read Mein Kampf if they want to.

Source: I'm a Librarian.

Only slightly off topic here, but every librarian I've ever talked to or heard from has been a very vocal opponent of censorship and seem to echo such statements as your "ALL books are allowed in my library". I'd just like to say Thank You for your efforts to eradicate ignorance. Librarians seem to be a woefully undervalued resource these days.

Masturbation in Alice in Wonderland? I've read that book many times and I've yet to find anything sexual.

Yeah I dont even think Zombie Freud could find most of the undertones claimed.

I'm actually wondering if that report of the book having been banned in 1900 for sexual content is an internet legend. Apparently the site which originally listed that info is no longer up, so the only citations available are other sites which took their info from that site. And since it was 113 years ago, chances of finding a verifiable source are not good. It's possible it could have been banned due to the accusations that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, but it's not clear to me if those accusations were already going around that early (he died in 1898) or if those came about more later.

The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away, comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down, but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head, itwould twist itself round and look up in her face, with such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out laughing: and when she had got its head down, and was going to begin again, it was very provoking to find that the hedgehog had unrolled itself, and was in the act of crawling away: besides all this, there was generally a ridge or furrow in the way wherever she wanted to send the hedgehog to, and, as the doubled-up soldiers were always getting up and walking off to other parts of the ground, Alice soon came to the conclusion that sex was a very difficult game indeed.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:And what is at heart a surprisingly positive view of Islam (and other faiths in general), for that matter.

I always thought that the view of Islam (Tash) in the Narnia books was thoroughly unpleasant and the Calormenes a racist caricature of everyone in the middle east. Then you get to the Last Battle and find out that anyone who did good in Tash's name was a Christian Aslanian all the time, so that's OK.

The whole series is spectacularly racist, sexist and snobbish: the rights of white humans to rule over other sentient, talking creatures; the inferior roles of women and so on. Pushing Christianity is the least of Narnia's faults.

meanmutton:/Yes, the first title of that book had the n-word as its title.

Of course it did, It was written and published in Britain, where the n-word (as you bravely anti-censorship, free-speech-loving folks must call it) has never had the odium attached to it which it had in the US. As a parallel consider the r-word, which is tossed around on Fark and in the US but which is utterly unacceptable in the UK.

Lady Indica:ghostfacekillahrabbit: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And didn't it bother anyone else that the boy always demanded things and never bothered to say thank you? My boys (then 6 & 3) pointed that out to me.

I may just be drunk, but as I remember it, that was the whole point of the Giving Tree, and it was so famous and tear-jerking precisely because it made that bother you.

I'm pretty high, but I farking hated that book because the boy just takes and takes and the tree gives literally everything for nothing in return. Sick and quite unequal. I didn't pick up that that was the entire point, if so...then bravo, it did a great job evoking disgust. My impression was that it was religious-y in nature and glorifying a sick selfless love, hence my disgust.

Did the author ever say what their view was? I suppose regardless the fact that it evokes this discussion and reaction so strongly so many years later is a testament to what it is.

/hopes the boy got some nasty splinters

Yeah, I never read it as a child but as an adult, it seemed like a farking awful message.

That's basically where it came from. Here's the "explanation" I found through some searching:

"Green Eggs and Ham, meanwhile, is a thinly disguised account of homosexual seduction. In this kiddie favorite, "Sam I Am" (that is, "Same As I Am") tries to persuade the narrator to "eat" green eggs and ham. Anyone who has traveled in the Spanish-speaking world knows what "eggs" are. The ham, of course, is a long, phallic sausage, perfect for "porking" someone. The protagonist repeatedly denies any interest in the offer, but Sam persists, proposing that he join him in any number of locations, positions, and kinky arrangements. ("Would you, could you, on a boat? Would you, could you, with a goat?") Finally, our hero gives in, just once-and discovers that he enjoys fellating breakfast after all. Sam has made a convert, and the legion of God-Fearing Heterosexuals is diminished by one. Actually, The Cat in the Hat leaves an odd aftertaste, with its closing admonition not to tell your parents what you've been up to. Read immediately after Green Eggs and Ham, the moral is clear."

If you didn't write that yourself and it wasn't written by someone else ironically, I'd say that person is so deep in the wardrobe that he's in a ham-handed Christian allegory that is not banned for its occult themes.

The Giving Tree was by Shel Silverstein. He publicly hated children and said the book was about what ungrateful little pricks they can be. Shel Silverstein is much more fun if you understand his point of view.

obamadidcoke:What about this bibble thing that they like so much? It's full of murder, rape, war and destruction. It is also closely associated with hate crimes and genocide.

I don't think all of these books are exactly appropriate for my daughter (well, actually, the Anne Frank one is a bit heavy and, yeah, there's quite a bit of sex in it that my very young child isn't grown up enough for) but that certainly doesn't mean that I'd want her reading the Bible. I mean, when she's a bit older (say, teenager), she can read whatever she wants but now? Yeah, we can skip that one, too.